Barriers to Agricultural Exports from Developing Countries ...directory.umm.ac.id/Data...

Barriers to Agricultural Exports from

Developing Countries: The Role of Sanitary and

Phytosanitary Requirements

SPENCER HENSON and RUPERT LOADER *

University of Reading, UK

Summary. Ð This paper explores the impact of sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures indeveloped countries on developing country exports of agricultural and food products. It identi®esthe problems that developing countries face in meeting SPS requirements and how these relate tothe nature of SPS measures and the compliance resources available to government and the supplychain. The paper examines the impact of the WTO's SPS Agreement on the extent to which SPSmeasures impede exports from developing countries. It identi®es the problems that limit theparticipation of developing countries in the SPS Agreement and their concerns about the way inwhich it currently operates. Ó 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Key words Ð trade, agricultural, food, nontari� barriers, sanitary and phytosanitary measures

1. INTRODUCTION

One of the most important manifestations ofeconomic globalization is the expansion ofinternational trade. While some developingcountries have performed well in worldmarkets, many have struggled to become fullyintegrated in the world trading system. Theprogressive liberalization of world tradethrough, for example, successive rounds ofGeneral Agreement on Tari�s and Trade(GATT) negotiations and the establishment ofthe World Trade Organization (WTO),however, has created opportunities for devel-oping countries to access developed countrymarkets more easily. In particular, recente�orts to reduce barriers to trade in agriculturaland food products, including tari�s, quantita-tive restrictions and other trade barriers,through the Uruguay Round, provide oppor-tunities for enhanced export performance forboth traditional and nontraditional products.

Concurrent with the liberalization of tari�and quantitative restrictions, however, therehas been increased concern about the impact ofother measures, many of which are not explic-itly trade-related, on agricultural and foodexports. In particular, it is now widelyacknowledged that technical measures such asfood quality and sanitary and phytosanitary(SPS) requirements can impede trade, particu-

larly in the case of developing countries. TheUruguay Round addressed the impact of theserequirements on trade through the TechnicalBarriers to Trade (TBT) and SPS Agreements.Concerns have been expressed, however, thatdeveloping countries lack the resources toparticipate e�ectively in the institutions of theWTO, and thus may be unable to exploit theopportunities provided by these agreements(Michalopoulos, 1999).

The aim of this paper is to assess the impactof SPS measures on the ability of developingcountries to access markets in developedcountries for agricultural and food products, inparticular the European Union (EU). Itattempts to identify the speci®c problems thatdeveloping countries experience in meeting SPSrequirements and the degree to which theserelate to their level of development and thespeci®c requirements of developed countrymarkets. The degree to which the SPS Agree-ment has assisted developing countries inovercoming these barriers is explored, withparticular emphasis on the constraints thatmight limit the e�ective participation of devel-oping countries in the institutions of the WTO.

World Development Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 85±102, 2001Ó 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

Printed in Great Britain0305-750X/00/$ - see front matter

PII: S0305-750X(00)00085-1www.elsevier.com/locate/worlddev

* This article is based on research work funded by the

UK Department for International Development. Final

revision accepted: 19 June 2000.

85

2. DEVELOPING COUNTRYPARTICIPATION IN THE WORLD

TRADING SYSTEM

In recent years, much attention has been paidto the liberalization and expansion of worldtrade and its contribution to economic growth.Thus, for example, during 1987±97, world tradenearly doubled and the ratio of trade to GDP(in purchasing power parity dollars) increasedfrom 20.6% to 29.6% (World Bank, 1999a).While the concept of ``outward-oriented'' or``export-oriented'' development remains contro-versial (see, for example, Milner, 1990), there isevidence of a positive relationship betweenproductivity enhancement and economicgrowth and export performance (Edwards,1998; Rodrick, 1999). For example, the rate ofgrowth in GDP of those developing countrieswith positive GDP, trade and agriculturalgrowth rates throughout the period 1980±90 to1990±95, was almost 300% greater than that ofdeveloping countries as a whole (Bathrick,1998).

Over 1980±96, low and middle-incomecountries (as classi®ed by the World Bank)increased their share of trade in GDP from 30%to 42% and from 43% to 52%, respectively(World Bank, 1999a). These broad ®gures,however, mask important di�erences in theexport performance of individual developingcountries. On the one hand, growth in realvolumes of trade amongst 44 of 93 developingcountries in 1985±94, including many of thepoorest, was below growth in GDP. On theother hand, there are signi®cant di�erences in

the trade performance of developing countriesby region (Table 1). While, for example, thetrade share of GDP increased in East Asia andthe Paci®c and South Asia, it declined in theMiddle East and North Africa and sub-Saha-ran Africa.

Agricultural and food exports are of partic-ular importance for many developing countries.For example, over 1980±97, agricultural andfood products typically accounted for over 25%of total merchandise exports from sub-SaharanAfrica (Figure 1). Further, agriculture is ofgreat economic importance, both macroeco-nomically and in terms of the livelihoods of the

Table 1. Trade share of GDP by income level, 1980 and1996a

Income level Trade share of GDP(%)

1980 1996

Low income 30 42Middle income 43 52

Lower-middle income ) 55Upper-middle income 46 47

Low and middle income 40 52East Asia and Paci®c 32 58Europe and Central

Asia) 64

Latin America andCaribbean

32 33

Middle East andNorth Africa

63 54

South Asia 21 30Sub-Saharan Africa 59 56High income 38 40

a Source: World Bank (1999a).

Figure 1. Value of agricultural exports as a proportion of total merchandise exports in sub-Saharan Africa, 1980±97(excluding South Africa and Nigeria). (Source: World Bank, 1999a).

WORLD DEVELOPMENT86

rural population. Agriculture accounts for 61%of employment and 14% of GDP in developingcountries, and 85% of employment and 36% ofGDP in least developed countries (WorldBank, 1999b).

Major agricultural products exported fromdeveloping countries include fruit and vegeta-bles, oilseeds, co�ee and cocoa. It is only inco�ee, however, that developing countries havea dominant position on the world market,accounting for around 80% of total exports(Diaz-Bonilla & Reca, 1999). Indeed, in thecase of products for which exports were tradi-tionally dominated by developing countries, forexample cocoa and sugar, their share in worldtrade has declined. There have been signi®cantdi�erences, however, in the export performanceof developing countries by region, with LatinAmerica and the Caribbean and Asia expand-ing exports of many of their key agriculturalcommodities, and Africa losing export share inall products.

The progressive liberalization of world tradehas created opportunities for developingcountries to become better integrated into theglobal trading system and to exploit theirnational and regional comparative advantages(Bathrick, 1998). Evidence suggests that devel-oping countries have a potential comparativeadvantage over developed countries in theproduction of agricultural and food products(Murphy & Shleifer, 1997; Edwards, 1992;Milner, 1990). This applies to traditional,mainly tropical, products such as spices,groundnuts, fruits and co�ee, as well asnontraditional products such as vegetables, cut¯owers and ®sh (Marsden, 1990; Biggs, Miller,Otto, & Tyler, 1996; Ja�ee, 1999). But theability of developing countries to maintain and/or expand their world market share will dependon their ability to meet the demands of theworld trading system, not only in terms ofcompetitive prices but also, for example, qual-ity and safety standards. The latter of these isthe subject of this paper.

3. LIBERALIZATION OF TRADE INAGRICULTURAL AND FOOD

PRODUCTS

Since the ®rst round of trade negotiationsunder the General Agreement on Tari�s andTrade (GATT) in 1947, there has been signi®-cant progress in the multilateral liberalizationof trade. It was not until the Uruguay Round,

which concluded in 1993, however, that signif-icant commitments were made to liberalizetrade in agricultural and food products. TheUruguay Round Agreement on Agriculturefosters greater discipline in a number of areasincluding market access, export subsidies,export restrictions and internal support(Hathaway & Ingco, 1996). In particular, theAgreement provides for the tari�cation ofnontari� measures a�ecting agricultural tradeand the reduction of these and prevailing tari�sover a period of six years from January 1995.

In 1994, developed countries collectivelyaccounted for 72.5% of total world imports ofagricultural products (UNCTAD, 1998). Table2 details the reduction in tari�s on agriculturalproducts by developed countries under theAgreement on Agriculture. The averagereduction in tari�s ranges from 26% in the caseof ``dairy products'' to 48% for ``cut ¯owers,plants and vegetable materials'' and ``otheragricultural products.'' Overall, the averagereduction in tari�s on agricultural products is37%. Of particular interest to developingcountries are reductions in tari�s on tropicalproducts. These range from 37% in the case of``tropical nuts and fruits'' to 52% for ``spices,¯owers are plants.'' Overall, the averagereduction in tari�s for tropical products is 43%.These reductions suggest that the Agreementon Agriculture achieved a signi®cant improve-ment in the developing country access todeveloped country markets. Because of thebifurcated nature of these reductions, however,these ®gures overstate the extent to which tradehas been liberalized. Indeed, it has beensuggested that the real bene®ts of the Agree-ment on Agriculture is the groundwork it laysdown for serious trade liberalization in futurerounds of negotiations (Hathaway & Ingco,1996). 1

As the liberalization of tari� and quantitativerestrictions on trade in agricultural and foodproducts has progressed attention has increas-ingly focused on technical measures such asfood safety regulations, labeling requirements,and quality and compositional standards. Onthe one hand this re¯ects the global prolifera-tion of technical measures, particularly indeveloped countries. This is illustrated, forexample, by the rate of noti®cations of techni-cal measures to GATT/WTO over 1981±98(Figure 2). On the other hand, it re¯ects widerrecognition that technical measures can act,either explicitly or implicitly, as a barrier totrade in a similar manner to tari�s and quan-

BARRIERS TO AGRICULTURAL EXPORTS 87

titative restrictions (Laird & Yeats, 1990;Vogel, 1995; Sykes, 1995; Messerlin & Zarro-uck, 1999). For example, the costs associatedwith technical requirements and customsprocedures in the EU has been estimated to beequivalent to a tax of 2% on the value of goodsshipped and in a developing country environ-ment can be a number of times greater(Hoekman, 1998). In the case of agriculturaland food exports in particular, compliance withtechnical requirements is a prerequisite ofsuccessful export trade (Horton, 1998).

Technical measures can be de®ned as(Roberts & DeKremer, 1997):

Standards governing the sale of products in nationalmarkets which have as their prima facie objective thecorrection of market ine�ciencies stemming fromexternalities associated with the production, distribu-tion and consumption of these products.

Technical measures can take a variety offorms and be directed at both risk-related andnonrisk-related externalities associated with

Table 2. Developed country imports and tari� reductions on agricultural productsa

Product Value of imports over Uruguay Round baseperiod

Reduction intari�s (%)

All sources Developing countries

All agricultural products 84,240 38,030 37Co�ee, tea, cocoa, Mat�e 9.136 8,116 35Fruits and vegetables 14.575 8,887 36Oilseeds, fats and oils 12,584 6,833 40Other agricultural products 15,585 4,233 48Animals and products 9,596 2,690 32Beverages and spirits 6,608 2,012 38Flowers, plants and vegetable materials 1.945 1,187 48Tobacco 3,086 1,135 36Spices and cereal preparations 2,767 1,134 35Sugar 1,730 1,030 30Grains 5.310 725 39Dairy products 1,317 48 26Tropical products 24,022 18,744 43Tropical beverages 8,655 8.041 46Tropical fruits and nuts 4,340 3,672 37Certain oilseeds and oils 3,443 2,546 40Roots, rice and tobacco 4,591 2,497 40Spices, ¯owers and plants 2,992 1,987 52

a Source: UNCTAD/Commonwealth Secretariat (1996).

Figure 2. Noti®cations of technical measures to GATT/WTO, 1981±98. (Source: OECD, 1997; updated based onpublished World Treade Organization documentation.)

WORLD DEVELOPMENT88

agricultural and food markets (Roberts, Josl-ing, & Orden, 1999a; Roberts, Orden, & Josl-ing, 1999b). A large range of policy instrumentsis available to governments to correct perceivedmarket failures (Caswell & Henson, 1997). Onthe one hand, they can rely on ex post liabilityrules that permit redress should the interests ofthe buyer be violated. On the other, they canadopt ex ante technical measures such as bans,technical standards or information require-ments to remedy failures in the market. In thecase of risk-related externalities, the incentivesassociated with ex post liability are generallyregarded as insu�cient to provide the requiredlevel of protection and so controls generallytake the form of ex ante technical measures(Caswell & Henson, 1997).

Figure 3 details the goals of technicalmeasures in terms of the societal interests towhich they are directed and whether they arerelated to the reduction of physical risk. Thearea on which the remainder of this paper willconcentrate is risk-reducing measures aimed atthe protection of food safety, plant and animalhealth, and the natural environment, the so-called sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS)measures. Many of the issues highlighted in thispaper are also equally applicable to nonrisk-reducing measures, and indeed the TBTAgreement under which these are regulatedunder the WTO.

It is widely acknowledged that SPS measurescan act to impede trade in agricultural and foodproducts (Petrey & Johnson, 1993; Ndayisenga& Kinsey, 1994; Thilmany & Barrett, 1997;Hillman, 1997; Sykes, 1995; National ResearchCouncil, 1995; Unnevehr, 1999; Ja�ee, 1999;Digges, Gordon, & Marter, 1997). The tradeimpacts of SPS measures can be convenientlygrouped into three categories. First, they canprohibit trade by imposing an import ban or byprohibitively increasing production andmarketing costs. Second, they can divert trade

from one trading partner to another by layingdown regulations that discriminate acrosspotential supplies. Third, they can reduceoverall trade ¯ows by increasing costs or raisingbarriers for all potential suppliers. In certaincases, stricter SPS measures are applied toimports than domestic supplies, for example,where higher risks are associated with suppliesfrom other countries. But, even where compa-rable SPS measures are applied to bothimported and domestic supplies, they can act toimpede trade by, for example, imposing highercosts of compliance on importers than domesticsuppliers.

To date, the trade impacts of SPS measureshave been most widely acknowledged in adeveloped country context, for example,through the high-pro®le dispute between theEuropean Union and the United States overhormone use in meat production. It is sugges-ted, however, that SPS measures are a partic-ularly prominent issue for developing countries(see for example UNCTAD, 1997; Singh, 1994;FAO, 1999; UNCTAD/Commonwealth Secre-tariat, 1996; UNCTAD, 1998; Zarrilli, 1999;Finger & Schuler, 1999; Hirschorn & Unne-vehr, 1999). This re¯ects the predominance ofagricultural and food products in total exportsand the technical capability of developingcountries to comply with SPS requirements.But, most of the studies that have been under-taken, in particular the more rigorous, focus onthe United States. For example, Thornsbury,Roberts, DeRemer, and Orden (1997) estimatethe total impact of technical barriers on USexports of agricultural products in 1996 was $4,907 million. Of this, 90% was due to measurescovered by the SPS A greement. The impact offood safety standards in particular was esti-mated to have been around $ 2,288 million.

Various studies have addressed the issue ofSPS measures and developing country exportsdirectly, although in most cases the related

Figure 3. Classi®cation of technical trade barriers by regulatory goal. (Source: Roberts et al., 1999.)


costs of compliance and impact on trade ¯owsis not quanti®ed. SPS measures are claimed tobe an impediment to exports of, for example:®sh (ESCAP, 1996; Josupeit, 1997; Cato, 1998);spices (UNCTAD/Commonwealth Secretariat,1996); oilseeds, oils and fats (FAO, 1998);livestock products (FAO, 1994; Colby, 1997;Petrey & Johnson, 1993; Johnson, 1997); andhorticultural products (Giles, 1997; Gilmour &Oxley, 1998; Kortbech-Olesen, 1997; Sullivan,Sanchez, Weller, & Edwards, 1999). Moretheoretical work has demonstrated that devel-oping countries ®nd it di�cult to trade withdeveloped countries due to di�erences in qual-ity requirements, which in turn re¯ect prevail-ing consumer demand or the nature ofgovernment regulation (Murphy & Shleifer,1997).

One study that attempts to quantify the costsof compliance with SPS measures by develop-ing countries is Cato (1998). This study assessesthe costs of upgrading sanitary conditions inthe Bangladesh frozen shrimp industry tosatisfy EU and US hygiene requirements. It isestimated that $ 17.6 million was spent toupgrade plants over 1997±98. This gives anaverage expenditure per plant of $ 239,630. Thetotal industry cost required to maintainHACCP is estimated to be $ 2.2 million perannum. Further, the Government of Bangla-desh is estimated to have spent $ 283,000 overthis period and predicts an expenditure of $225,000 per annum to maintain a HACCPmonitoring program.

Finger and Schuler (1999) examine the costsof SPS-related projects supported by the World

Bank as an indicator of the resources requiredfor the development of SPS controls, bothdomestically and related to trade, in developingcountries. For example, the cost of achievingdisease- and pest-free status to enable Argen-tina to export meat, fruit and vegetables isreported to have been $ 82.7 million over theperiod 1991±96. Similarly, the cost of upgrad-ing hygiene standards in slaughterhouses inHungary over 1985±91 is estimated as $ 41.2million.

Mutasa and Nyamandi (1998) assess thedegree to which SPS requirements impedeexports of agricultural and food products fromAfrican countries through a survey of CodexAlimentarius contact points. Of the countriesthat responded, 57% indicated that exportedproducts had been rejected within the previoustwo years following border inspection. Themain reasons were microbiological/spoilage orcontamination. Although all of these countriesinspected food products prior to export, mostconsidered that ®nancial constraints limited thee�ectiveness of these procedures and that, inparticular, testing and inspection facilities wereinadequate.

A broader indication of the impact of SPSrequirements on developing country exports ofagricultural and food products is provided bydata on rejections following border inspectionin developed countries. At the current time,these data are only systematically collected andpublicly available for the United States (Table3). 2 Over the period June 1996 to June 1997,there were signi®cant rejections of importsfrom Africa, Asia and Latin America and the

Table 3. Number of contraventions cited for US Food and Drug Administration import detentions, June 1996±June1997a

Reason forcontravention

Africa Latin Americaand the

Caribbean

Europe Asia Total

Food additives 2 (0.7%) 57 (1.5%) 69 (5.8%) 426 (7.4%) 554 (5.0%)Pesticide residues 0 (0.0%) 821 (21.1%) 20 (1.7%) 23 (0.4%) 864 (7.7%)Heavy metals 1 (0.3%) 426 (10.9%) 26 (2.2%) 84 (1.5%) 537 (94.8%)Mould 19 (6.3%) 475 (12.2%) 27 (2.3%) 49 (0.8%) 570 (5.1%)Microbiologicalcontamination

125 (41.3%) 246 (6.3%) 159 (13.4%) 895 (15.5%) 1,425 (12.8%)

Decomposition 9 (3.0%) 206 (5.3%) 7 (0.6%) 668 (11.5%) 890 (8.0%)Filth 54 (17.8%) 1,253 (32.2%) 175 (14.8%) 2,037 (35.2%) 3,519 (31.5%)Low acid cannedfoods

4 (1.3%) 142 (3.6%) 425 (35.9%) 829 (14.3%) 1,400 (12.5%)

Labeling 38 (12.5%) 201 (5.2%) 237 (20.0%) 622 (10.8%) 1,098 (9.8%)Other 51 (16.8%) 68 (1.7%) 39 (3.3%) 151 (2.6%) 309 (2.8%)

Total 303 (100%) 3,895 (100%) 1,184 (100%) 5,784 (100%) 11,166 (100%)

a Source: FAO (1999).

WORLD DEVELOPMENT90

Caribbean due to microbiological contamina-tion, ®lth and decomposition. 3 This indicatesthe considerable problems that developingcountries have in meeting basic food hygienerequirements (FAO, 1999), let alone require-ments for which more sophisticated monitoringand testing, and therefore more costly, proce-dures are required, for example limits onpesticide residues and heavy metals. The cost ofrejection at the border can be considerable,including loss of product value, transport andother export costs, and product re-export ordestruction.

4. SURVEY OF SPS-RELATED PROBLEMSASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPING

COUNTRY EXPORTS

The foregoing discussion suggests that SPSmeasures are potentially a signi®cant barrier toexports of agricultural and food products fromdeveloping to developed countries. Theremainder of this paper draws heavily on astudy that aims to assess the problems thatdeveloping countries have complying with SPSrequirements in developed country exportmarkets. Further, it explores the potentialbene®ts of the SPS Agreements and the abilityof developing countries to participate e�ectivelyin the Agreement. The particular focus of thestudy is exports to the EU, although the resultsare generally applicable to exports to mostdeveloped countries. This study comprised twomain stages as described below.

To understand better the problems faced bydeveloping countries, a series of 10 country in-depth case studies was undertaken over theperiod October 1998 to March 1999 (these aredescribed in Henson, Loader, Swinbank,Bredahl, & Lux, 2000). 4 These involved inter-views with government personnel with respon-sibility for SPS and WTO issues, exporters ofagricultural and food products, nongovern-mental organizations (NGOs) etc. On the basisof these case studies, key issues a�ecting theability of developing countries to comply withSPS requirements in the EU were identi®ed.

To obtain quantitative information on therelative importance of the issues identi®edthrough the country case studies, a survey wasundertaken of all low and middle-incomecountries as classi®ed by the World Bank(1998), which were members of the WTO and/or Codex Alimentarius in March 1999. In eachcase, a questionnaire was sent by fax to a

named contact at the WTO delegation inGeneva or, in cases where the countryconcerned was not a member of the WTO, theCodex Alimentarius contact point. 5 A total of92 questionnaires were successfully sent by faxduring April 1999. Any country that could notbe contacted by fax after ®ve attempts wasexcluded from the sample. This applied to atotal of 44 countries. A total of 65 fullycompleted questionnaires were returned by fax,giving an overall valid response rate of 72%.

5. PROBLEMS EXPERIENCED BYDEVELOPING COUNTRIES DUE TO SPS

MEASURES

Survey respondents were asked to consider arange of factors that might impede their coun-try's ability to export agricultural and foodproducts to the EU and indicate the signi®-cance of each on a ®ve-point Likert scale from``very signi®cant'' (1) at one extreme to ``veryinsigni®cant'' (5) at the other. Overall, thefactor considered the most signi®cant impedi-ment to exports to the European Union wasSPS requirements (Table 4). Other technicalrequirements, for example labeling regulationsor compositional standards, and transport andother direct export costs were also consideredimportant impediments to trade. Tari�s andquantitative restrictions were considered rela-tively less important impediments to trade inagricultural and food products. To a certainextent, however, this re¯ects the fact that manyof the countries that responded to the surveywere subject to lower tari� rates, for example,under the Lom�e convention.

Respondents were also asked to indicate thesigni®cance of SPS requirements as an impedi-ment to agricultural and food exports to anumber of developed country markets. Themarket for which SPS requirements wereconsidered to be the most signi®cant impedi-

Table 4. Mean signi®cance scores for factors in¯uencingability to export agricultural and food products to the EUa

Factor Meanscore

SPS requirements 2.1Other technical requirements 2.8a

Transport and other direct export costs 2.8a

Tari�s 3.3Quantitative restrictions 3.8

a Scores are not signi®cantly di�erent at the 5% level.


ment to trade was the European Union,followed by Australia and the United States(Table 5). To a certain extent these results willre¯ect the importance of individual developedcountry markets for products that are generallysubject to extensive SPS controls, for example,meat and other animal products and unpro-cessed fruit and vegetables. They will alsore¯ect the level and types of SPS controlsapplied. For example, the EU has progressivelyshifted to process-based controls enforced by a``competent authority'' in exporting countriesrather than border inspection. Many develop-ing countries regard these process-basedcontrols as more onerous. Although the United

States is shifting to similar forms of SPScontrols on imports, at the current time theseare less developed.

Figure 4 reports the proportion of countriesthat responded to the survey that had beenprevented from exporting agricultural and foodproducts to the European Union in the lastthree years due to SPS requirements. Theproducts for which SPS requirements had beena particular problem were meat/meat products,®sh/®sh products and fruit and vegetables/fruitand vegetable products. To a large extent theseresults re¯ect the fact that these products aretypically subject to extensive SPS controls. Forexample, strict microbiological and animalhealth requirements are generally applied tomeat and meat products. Similarly, fruit andvegetables are typically subject to strict controlsagainst pests and plant diseases. At the otherextreme, exports of dairy products fromdeveloping countries to the European Unionare largely insigni®cant due to the impact ofother trade measures.

The country case studies identi®ed a numberof potential problems associated with SPSrequirements in the European Union that couldact to impede exports of agricultural and foodproducts. To a large extent these related tocompliance resources, including access toinformation on SPS requirements, availability

Table 5. Mean signi®cance scores for problems due toSPS requirements when exporting agricultural and food

products to various developed countriesa

Country Mean score

European Union 2.1Australia 2.7a

USA 2.8a

Japan 3.3b

Canada 3.4b

a Scores for Australia and USA are not signi®cantlydi�erent at the 5% level.b Scores for Japan and Canada are not signi®cantlydi�erent at the 5% level.

Figure 4. Number of developing countries for which exports of agricultural and food products to the EU have beenprevented as a direct result of SPS requirements.

WORLD DEVELOPMENT92

of technical and/or scienti®c expertise and®nancial constraints. Further issues related toawareness of SPS issues among governmento�cials and within agriculture and the foodindustry, and limitations in administrativearrangements for SPS controls in developingcountries. In turn, these constraints meant that,in certain cases, countries were unable tocomply with SPS requirements in the timepermitted and/or the cost of doing so wasperceived to be prohibitively high.

In certain circumstances, SPS requirementsapplied by developed countries (which aregenerally developed with a view to the structureand modus operandi of their own domesticindustries) may con¯ict with prevailingproduction and/or marketing methods indeveloping countries. In this case large-scaleinvestment may be required over extendedperiods of time in order to comply, unlessdeveloped countries are willing to acceptdi�erent procedures as `èquivalent'' in terms ofthe level of SPS protection a�orded. In turn,suppliers that strive to meet these requirementsmay become dependent on higher value exportsto developed country markets. One example, isthe Nile Perch processing sector in Kenya,Tanzania and Uganda, which has investedheavily at landing sites on Lake Victoria and inprocessing facilities to satisfy the EuropeanUnion's hygiene requirements. As a result, thesector has become reliant on exports of fresh®llets to the European Union, which provide ahigher return than both local m arkets andexports of frozen ®sh to other developedcountries, for example, Japan or the UnitedStates. Indeed, a number of processors haveceased operating as a direct result of a ban onexports to the European Union imposed inApril 1999.

Respondents were asked to indicate thesigni®cance of each of these problems in terms

of their country's ability to satisfy SPSrequirements when exporting agricultural andfood products to the European Union. Thefactors judged to be most signi®cant were `ìn-su�cient access to scienti®c/technical exper-tise'' and `ìncompatibility of SPS requirementswith domestic production/marketing methods''(Table 6). Problems judged to be less signi®cantwere ``poor awareness of SPS requirementswithin agriculture and the food industry'' and``poor access to information on SPS require-ments.'' These results suggest that developingcountries are broadly aware of the SPSrequirements they face in exporting to theEuropean Union, but may lack the resourcesrequired to comply. This situation is exacer-bated where SPS requirements con¯ict withdomestic production/marketing methods and/or the period of time permitted for complianceis relatively short.

6. SPS AGREEMENT

The international community has addressedthe impact of SPS standards on trade in agri-cultural and food products through the WTO'sSPS Agreement. The Agreement grew out ofseveral trade disputes, most notably betweendeveloped countries, which could not beresolved under the existing GATT ``StandardsCode'' or through prevailing GATT disputesettlement procedures. It is widely accepted,however, that these arrangements were ine�ec-tive in, and indeed were not applied to,preventing the use of technical measures asbarriers to trade (Victor, 1999).

The key objectives of the SPS Agreement areto:

ÐProtect and improve the current humanhealth, animal health, and phytosanitarysituation of all Member countries.

Table 6. Mean signi®cance scores for problems in meeting SPS requirements in exporting agricultural and foodproducts to the EUa

Factor Mean score

Insu�cient access to scienti®c/technical expertise 1.6Incompatibility of SPS requirements with domestic production/marketing methods 2.1Poor access to ®nancial resources 2.6Insu�cient time permitted for compliance 3.0a

Limitations in own country's administrative arrangements for SPS requirements 3.1a

Poor awareness of SPS requirements amongst government o�cials 3.1a

Poor awareness of SPS requirements within agriculture and food industry 3.5Poor access to information on SPS requirements 3.9

a Scores for these factors are not signi®cantly di�erent at the 5% level.


ÐProtect Members from arbitrary or unjus-ti®able discrimination due to di�erent sani-tary and phytosanitary standards.

The Agreement permits individual nationstates to take legitimate measures to protect thelife and health of plants, animals and consum-ers given the level of risk that they deem to be``appropriate,'' provided such measures can bejusti®ed scienti®cally and do not unnecessarilyimpede trade. They are required, however, torecognize that measures adopted by othercountries, although di�erent, can provideequivalent levels of protection. The key ele-ments of the Agreement are detailed below(WTO, 1994, 1995, 1996; Roberts, 1997):

ÐHarmonization: In many circumstancesthe harmonization of SPS standards canact to reduce regulatory trade barriers.Therefore, Members are encouraged toparticipate in a number of internationalstandards-setting organizations, most nota-bly Codex Alimentarius, the InternationalO�ce of Epizootics (OIE) and the Interna-tional Plant Protection Convention (IPPC).Members are expected to base their SPSmeasures on the standards, guidelines, orrecommendations set by these organizations,where they exist. They are, however, entitledto adopt measures that achieve a higher levelof protection, provided this can be justi®edscienti®cally.ÐEquivalence: Members are required to ac-cept the SPS measures of other memberswhere they can be demonstrated to be equiv-alent; they o�er the same level of protection.This protects exporting countries fromunjusti®ed trade restrictions, even whenthese products are produced under qualita-tively di�erent SPS requirements. In prac-tice, however, the right of the importingcountry to test imported products limits theright of equal treatment.ÐAssessment of risk and determination of theappropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitaryprotection: Members are required to providescienti®c evidence when applying SPS mea-sures that di�er from international stan-dards. This evidence should be based on arisk assessment, taking into account, whenpossible and appropriate, risk assessmentmethodologies developed by the interna-tional standards organizations. Further,Members are obliged to avoid arbitrary orunjusti®able distinctions in the levels ofprotection it considers to be appropriate ifthe distinctions would act to distort trade.

ÐAdaptation to regional conditions, includingpest- or disease-free areas and areas of lowpest or disease prevalence: The Agreementrecognizes that SPS risks do not correspondto national boundaries; there may be areaswithin a particular country that have a lowerrisk than others. The Agreement, therefore,recognizes that pest- or disease-free areasmay exist, determined by factors such asgeography, ecosystems, epidemiologicalsurveillance, and the e�ectiveness of SPScontrols. A good example in this respect isFoot and Mouth Disease (FMD)-free areaswithin countries that do not have anFMD-free status overall.ÐTransparency: The Agreement establishesprocedures for enhanced transparency inthe setting of SPS standards amongst Mem-bers. Members are obliged to publish andnotify the SPS Secretariat of all proposedand implemented SPS measures. This infor-mation is relayed via the ``Noti®cationAuthority'' within each Member Govern-ment. Moreover, Members are required toestablish an ``Enquiry Point,'' which is thedirect point of contact for any other Mem-ber regarding any questions about SPS mea-sures or relevant documents.ÐConsultation and dispute settlement: TheWTO Agreement establishes detailed andstructured procedures for the settlement ofdisputes between Members regarding thelegitimacy of SPS measures that distorttrade. This takes the form of a dispute settle-ment body consisting of Member representa-tives.

Given that developing countries typicallyimplement qualitatively or quantitatively lowerSPS standards than developed countries, inprinciple the SPS Agreement should help tofacilitate trade from developing to developedcountries by improving transparency, promot-ing harmonization and preventing the imple-mentation of SPS measures that cannot bejusti®ed scienti®cally. Much of this is depen-dent, however, on the ability of developingcountries to participate e�ectively in theAgreement. The Agreement itself tries to facil-itate this by acknowledging the special prob-lems that developing countries can face incomplying with SPS measures and allowing forspecial and di�erential treatment:

ÐMembers are instructed to take account ofthe special needs of developing countries,and in particular least-developed countries,in the development of SPS measures.

WORLD DEVELOPMENT94

ÐTo maintain opportunities for exportsfrom developing countries, where the appro-priate level of protection permits scope forthe phased introduction of new SPS mea-sures, longer periods should be given forproducts that are of special interest to devel-oping countries.ÐThe SPS Committee is permitted to grantdeveloping countries time-limited exemp-tions from obligations under the Agreement,taking into account their ®nancial, trade anddevelopment needs.ÐMembers should encourage and facilitatethe active participation of developing coun-tries in international organizations such asCodex Alimentarius, OIE and IPPC.ÐMembers are encouraged to provide tech-nical assistance to other Members, in partic-ular developing countries, for the purpose ofallowing such countries to meet the level ofSPS protection required in their export mar-kets.

Further, the Agreement permits additionaltime to developing countries to implement allor some of its provisions. Developing countrieswere permitted an additional two years (until1997) to comply with all the provisions exceptthose associated with transparency. The leastdeveloped countries were permitted an addi-tional ®ve years (until 2000) to comply with theAgreement in its entirety.

7. PROBLEMS WITH THE SPSAGREEMENT

Developing countries will only actualize thepotential bene®ts of the SPS Agreement if theyare willing and able to participate fully in theinstitutions and practices that it establishes(Henson & Loader, 1999; Michalopoulos, 1999;Zarrilli, 1999; Finger & Schuler, 1999). There

are three key issues relating to this (Michalop-oulos, 1999). First is the degree to whichdeveloping countries are represented in WTOand related institutions, for example, the SPSCommittee and international standards orga-nizations. This includes, for example,membership of the WTO and internationalstandards organizations as well as the ability tooperate missions that can adequately deal withSPS matters. Second is the e�ective participa-tion of developing countries in activities asso-ciated with the SPS Agreement. A key issue inthis respect is the ability to establish andoperate e�ectively the institutions de®ned bythe Agreement. Third is the institutionalcapacity at home to implement e�ective SPScontrols and to comply with commitmentsunder the SPS Agreement. This section aims toassess the degree to which developing countrieshave participated in the SPS Agreement to dateand discusses the concerns that developingcountries have about the manner in which theAgreement has operated since its inception.

(a) Participation in the SPS Agreement

Although the majority of low and lower-middle income countries are members of theWTO, the rate of membership (62%) is signi®-cantly lower than among upper middle or high-income countries (83% and 92% respectively)(Table 7). Indeed, a number of notable low andlower-middle income countries, for example,China, Nepal, Ethiopia, and Sudan, arecurrently not WTO Members. Although, manyof these are Observers to the WTO and haveindicated their intention to join, at the currenttime they are not able to participate fully ininstitutions such as the SPS Agreement.

The ability of Members to participate e�ec-tively in the institutions of the WTO is depen-dent on having an adequately resourced

Table 7. Membership of WTO and international standards organizations by income group, June 1999a ;b

Income group Total countriesc WTO OIE IPPC Codex Alimentarius All

Low 60 40 52 26 51 19Lower middle 60 34 40 35 49 20Upper middle 29 24 25 23 31 17High 38 35 33 25 32 26Total 187 133 150 109 163 75Least developed 29 29 21 11 25 9

a Based on published World Trade Organization documentation.b Income groups de®ned by World Bank.c Excluding European Communities.


mission in Geneva (Michalopoulos, 1999). But,while 65 low and middle-income memberscurrently maintain WTO Missions in Geneva,the remaining deal with WTO matters fromembassies in other European capitals, inparticular Brussels, or ministries in their owncapitals. Further, the WTO missions of manylow and middle-income countries are poorlysta�ed; in many cases there is only one indi-vidual to deal with all WTO matters, of whichthe SPS Agreement is generally a minor part.Even in better resourced missions, as is typicalof larger countries such as India and Brazil,sta� may lack expertise in SPS issues and haveto relay matters associated with the SPSAgreement to experts in their capital for guid-ance. Indeed, given the complexity of SPSissues, many developing countries consider lackof technical expertise to be the major constraintlimiting th eir e�ective participation in the SPSAgreement.

Membership of the international standardsorganizations is encouraged by the SPSAgreement, indeed this is crucial if developingcountries are to bene®t fully from the Agree-ment. For example, active participation in thesetting of international standards is critical ifdeveloping countries are to ensure that ade-quate account is taken of their needs andspecial circumstances. Although the majority oflow and lower-middle income countries aremembers of the international standards orga-nizations, in particular the OIE and CodexAlimentarius (Table 7), the rate of membershipis signi®cantly lower than among upper-middleand high-income countries. Further, only 33%of low and lower-middle income countries aremembers of all three international standardsorganizations, compared to 64% of upper-middle and high-income countries.

The participation of low and middle-incomeWTO Members in the SPS Agreement can beassessed by reference to the institutions andprocedures laid down by the Agreement itself.

The discussion below focuses on three of these:implementation of transparency institutions;attendance at SPS Committee meetings; andnoti®cations of SPS measures.

The SPS Agreement lays down certainrequirements that aim to ensure transparencyin the implementation of SPS measures inMember countries. Members are required toestablish speci®c contact points to facilitatecommunication regarding SPS measures: (i) asingle national `enquiry point', which isresponsible for responding to queries fromother Members and providing documents onthe application of SPS measures; (ii) a singlenational noti®cation agency, which is respon-sible for all procedures associated with noti®-cation of new or amended SPS measures. Table8 details the number of members with de®nedenquiry points and noti®cation agencies. As ofJune 1999, only 65% of low and lower-middleincome countries had speci®ed an enquiry pointand only 59% had speci®ed a national noti®-cation agency (including the 29 least developedcountries that are not required to comply until2000). Given the fundamental importance ofthe transparency mechanisms to t he workingof the SPS Agreement, this indicates a criticalweakness in the participation of developingcountries.

A further measure of the participation ofdeveloping countries in the SPS Agreement isattendance at meetings of the SPS Committeein Geneva. Attendance lists have beenpublished for 10 of the 12 SPS Committeemeetings held November 1995 to September1998. Over this period, almost 50% of low andlower-middle income Members attended nomeetings of the SPS Committee and less than20% attended ®ve or more meetings. Furtherevidence of the limited use of the SPSCommittee by low and middle-incomeMembers is provided by the tally of crossnoti®cations (Roberts et al., 1999a,b) 6Ðof the83 cross-noti®cations to September 1999, only

Table 8. Implementation of transparency obligations by WTO member states by income group, June 1999a

Income group Number of membersb Enquiry point National noti®cation authority Both

Low 40 18 15 13Lower middle 34 30 29 29Upper middle 24 21 20 20High 35 33 32 32Total 133 102 96 94Least developed 29 8 6 4

a Based on published World Trade Organization documentation. Income groups de®ned by World Bank.b Individual country members, excluding the European Communities.

WORLD DEVELOPMENT96

23 (28%) were ®led by low and middle-incomeMembers. But while developing countries maybe unable to represent themselves at the SPSCommittee on a routine basis, there is evidencethat when an issue arises that threatens theireconomic interests, they are able to make theirvoice heard. For example, of the 15 writtenrepresentations to the SPS Committee againstthe European Union's proposals for restric-tions on a¯atoxins in various foods in early1998, 12 were from low and middle-incomemembers (Henson et al., 2000).

When Members plan to implement SPSmeasures where an international standard doesnot exist, or where the content of the proposedmeasure is not the same as an internationalstandard, they are required to notify otherMembers through the SPS Committee Secre-tariat. Table 9 details the number of noti®ca-tions made by Members as of August 1999.Over this period, only 34% of low and low-middle income countries (including leastdeveloped countries) had issued any noti®ca-tions, while the noti®cations by these countriesaccounted for only 10% of the total. While it isundoubtedly the case that developing countriestypically promulgate fewer SPS measures thandeveloped countries, there is evidence that, todate, many developing countries have notnoti®ed the SPS Committee on a routine basisof new measures that do not conform tointernational standards (Henson et al., 2000).

The foregoing discussion suggests that, todate, developing countries as a whole have notactively participated in the SPS Agreement.While there are exceptions to this generalconclusion, in particular Chile, Brazil andThailand, it raises concerns about the ability ofdeveloping countries to bene®t from theAgreement. Indeed, the failure of developingcountries to participate even in SPS Committeemeetings suggests that the workings of the

Agreement will tend to be driven by the prior-ities of developed countries.

The case studies suggested that developingcountries face a number of constraints thatlimit their ability to participate e�ectively in theSPS Agreement. These related to the ability toimplement and/or respond to key elements ofthe SPS Agreement including noti®cation ofnew SPS measures, risk assessment, develop-ment and implementation of internationalstandards, demonstrating equivalency anddispute settlement.

The most signi®cant constraint to e�ectiveparticipation in the SPS Agreement was judgedto be insu�cient ability to assess the implica-tions of developed country SPS requirementsfollowing noti®cation. Insu�cient ability toparticipate e�ectively in the dispute settlementprocedures and to demonstrate that domesticSPS measures are equivalent to developedcountry requirements were also consideredmajor constraints. These constraints in turnre¯ect the relatively poor scienti®c and techni-cal infrastructure in many developing countries.Further, they suggest that developing countriesare less able than developed countries to exploitto their advantage the disciplines and proce-dures established by the SPS Agreement (seeTable 10).

(b) Concerns about the operation of the SPSAgreement

Developing countries have a number ofconcerns about the manner in which the SPSAgreement has been implemented which, it isclaimed, limits their ability to participatee�ectively and bene®t from the Agreement (seefor example Prasidh, 1999). To a large extentthese re¯ect perceptions of the degree to whichdeveloped country Members have compliedwith their commitments under the SPS Agree-

Table 9. Noti®cation of SPS measures by WTO member states, August 1999a

Income group Number of membersb Number of membersnotifying standardsc

Number of measuresnoti®ed

Low 40 9 19Lower middle 34 16 201Upper middle 24 14 374High 35 28 1,708Total 133 67 2,302Lest developed 29 4 8

a Based on World Trade Organization. Income groups de®ned by World Bank.b Individual country members, excluding the European Communities.c EU member states are counted as individual notifying members.


ment, in particular relating to the needs andspecial circumstances of developing countries.They further re¯ect the fact that many low andmiddle-income members have no sense of``ownership'' of the rules and procedures laiddown by the WTO, rather they are consideredto be ``imposed'' by the major developedcountries that are perceived to have dominatedthe Uruguay Round negotiations (Finger &Schuler, 1999; Michalopoulos, 1999).

A number of developing countries are criticalof the manner in which the transparencymechanisms established under the SPS Agree-ment have operated to date. While the noti®-cation system is supported in principle, it issuggested that current arrangements do nottake adequate account of the circumstances ofdeveloping countries (see for example WTO,1998b,d, 1999a). In particular, it is suggestedthat in many cases the length of time givenbetween the noti®cation of new SPS measuresand their application is inadequate for devel-oping countries to respond in an e�ective andappropriate manner.

The SPS Agreement commits all Members totake account of the special circumstances ofdeveloping countries when developing SPSmeasures and to permit time-limited exemp-tions where necessary. A number of developingcountries have reported, however, that devel-oped countries are unwilling to permit addi-tional time for compliance and/or transitionalarrangements. Further, it is claimed that thereis a reluctance on the part of developed coun-tries to accept SPS measures in developingcountries as equivalent, rather they requirestrict compliance with the letter of theirrequirements (see for example WTO, 1998a,d,1999a). As a consequence, SPS measures maybe applied that are di�cult to comply withgiven local circumstances in developing coun-tries, for example climatic conditions and/or

prevailing systems of marketing and produc-tion, or for which the costs of compliance areprohibitive (Zarrilli, 1999).

Developing countries also have concernsabout the level and types of technical assistancegiven to facilitate the implementation of theSPS Agreement and/or compliance with devel-oped country SPS requirements (see for exam-ple WTO, 1998a, 1999a; Gonzalo Rios, 1999;Sinsakul, 1999). In particular, it is claimed thattechnical assistance often fails to address thefundamental day-to-day problems faced bydeveloping countries, many of which relate totheir overall level of economic development.Examples include the e�cacy of prevailingsystems of SPS controls, development ofscienti®c and technical expertise and access tomodern testing methods. Indeed, there is evi-dence that much technical assistance is reac-tionaryÐit is provided once problems withcompliance to SPS requirements in developedcountry markets have been identi®edÐratherthan part of a strategy aimed at generalcapacity building (Horton, 1998).

Finally, developing countries have been crit-ical of the procedures by which internationalstandards are negotiated and agreed withinCodex Alimentarius, OIE and IPPC. Whiledeveloping countries have been successful inencouraging Codex Alimentarius, for example,to develop standards for products of exportinterest to them, such as fresh tropical fruit andvegetables, there are concerns that these insti-tutions fail to take adequate account of theirneeds and special circumstances. It is claimedthat, as a result, the form and level of certaininternational standards is inappropriate and/orunachievable for developing countries (see forexample WTO, 1998c). Key issues include thenature of decision-making processes withinthe international standards organizations andthe ability of developing countries to represent

Table 10. Mean signi®cance scores for factors in¯uencing ability to participate e�ectively in SPS agreementa

Factor Mean score

Insu�cient ability to assess implications of developed country SPS requirements followingnoti®cation

1.5

Insu�cient ability to participate e�ectively in dispute settlement procedures 2.0Insu�cient ability to demonstrate that domestic SPS measures are equivalent to developedcountry requirements

2.6

Insu�cient ability to undertake risk assessment of SPS requirements 3.0a

Insu�cient ability to attend SPS Committee and international standards organisationmeetings

3.1a

Insu�cient ability to assess the scienti®c justi®cation of developed country SPS requirements 3.7


WORLD DEVELOPMENT98

themselves e�ectively given their limited ®nan-cial, scienti®c and technical resources. Indeed,there are concerns about certain recent deci-sions, for example standard s on maximumresidue levels (MRLs) for growth hormones inbeef (Zarrilli, 1999), that were adopted by arelatively small majority, while many develop-ing country Members that were not present atthe meeting, would have voted against.

Respondents to the survey were asked toindicate the signi®cance of each of these prob-lems in terms of the bene®ts their country hasobtained from the SPS Agreement. Meansigni®cance scores are reported in Table 11.The issue judged to be the most signi®cantproblem associated with the operation of theSPS Agreement was that developed countriestake insu�cient account of the needs of devel-oping countries in setting SPS requirements.The length of time allowed between the noti®-cation and implementation of SPS require-ments and the level of technical assistanceprovided by developed countries were alsoconsidered to be problems. This suggests thatthe concerns of developing countries about theoperation of the SPS Agreement are closelyrelated to the actions of developed countries insetting and managing SPS measures.

The SPS Committee has discussed a numberof the concerns outlined above as part of thetriennial review of the SPS Agreement (WTO,1999b). In the case of transparency arrange-ments, it is considered that many of theconcerns put forward by developing countriescould be resolved if Members more compre-hensively applied the recommended procedureslaid down by the SPS Committee. Some revi-sions of these procedures have been agreed, forexample, greater use of electronic means ofcommunication, providing access to informaltranslations of documents where available, andextension of the period allowed for commentson noti®cations. Further, Members have been

encouraged to accord longer time frames forcompliance with SPS requirements on productsof interest to developing countries whereappropriate. It is evident, however, that manydeveloping countries have remaining concernsabout the manner in which the Agreementoperates and in particular the degree to whichdeveloped country members actually take theirspecial needs into account.

8. CONCLUSIONS

The study detailed in this paper indicates thatSPS measures are a major factor in¯uencing theability of developing countries to exploit exportopportunities for agricultural and food prod-ucts in developed country markets. Indeed,amongst the surveyed countries, SPS measuresare considered the most important impedimentto agricultural and food exports to the EU. Toa large extent this re¯ects poor access tocompliance resources, including scienti®c andtechnical expertise, information and ®nance.But, the incompatibility of SPS requirementsand production and/or marketing methods indeveloping countries is also a major factora�ecting access to developed country markets.

While the international community hasattempted to overcome the trade distortivee�ects of SPS measures through the SPSAgreement, many developing countries lack theresources necessary to exploit the opportunitieso�ered by the Agreement. Again this re¯ectsthe relatively poor scienti®c and technicalinfrastructure in many developing countries.Further, developing countries have concernsabout the manner in which the SPS Agreementcurrently operates. In particular, they areconcerned about the extent to which developedcountries take account of the needs of devel-oping countries in setting SPS requirementsand the periods of time allowed between the

Table 11. Mean signi®cance scores for problems associated with the manner in which the SPS agreement operatesa

Factor Mean score

Developed countries take insu�cient account of the needs of developing countries in settingSPS requirements

1.8

Insu�cient time allowed between noti®cation and implementation of SPS requirements 2.3a

Insu�cient technical assistance given to developing countries 2.3a

Developed countries unwilling to accept developing country SPS measures as equivalent 2.8Harmonization process takes insu�cient account of needs of developing countries 2.8Insu�cient information given with noti®cations of SPS requirements 3.2Developed countries unwilling to engage in bilateral negotiations with developing countries 3.7



noti®cation and implementation of SPSmeasures. Clearly, while the SPS Agreementprovides for discipline in the use of SPSmeasures, ways need to be found to facilitatethe better inclusion of developing countries inthe operation of the Agreement. In so doing, asense of ``ownership'' of the Agreement needsto be developed among low and middle-incomeMembers of the WTO.

The issues highlighted in the paper need to beaddressed at three levels, by internationalinstitutions such as the WTO and the interna-tional standards organizations, by developedcountries that implement SPS requirements,and by developing countries themselves. TheWTO and international standards organiza-tions clearly need to consider means to facili-tate the more e�ective participation ofdeveloping countries. This might involve, forexample, changes to procedures and theprovision of technical and other forms ofassistance. In turn, this will require willingnesson the part of Members to permit the necessary

institutional reforms. Second, developed coun-tries need to be more aware of the needs andspecial circumstances of developing countriesand to take these into account, wheneverpossible when promulgating SPS measures.This does not imply that developed countriesshould be expected to adopt lower require-ments in terms of the level of protection tohuman, plant and animal health. Rather itsuggests that SPS measures should minimize,wherever possible, incompatibilities with thesystems of production and marketing applied indeveloping countries. Finally, developingcountries themselves need to implement insti-tutional structures and procedures that bestenable agricultural producers and foodprocessors to comply with the SPS require-ments they face in developed country markets.It will take action at all three levels to overcomethe barriers faced by developing countries as aresult of SPS requirements and thus enabletheir better participation in the world tradingsystem for agricultural and food products.

NOTES

1. The Agreement calls for discussions at the end of

®ve years on the need for further reform of trade in

agricultural products.

2. These data are published by the US Food and Drugs

Administration (FDA) and cover all food products

except meat and poultry.

3. These data must be treated with care when compar-

ing between regions and/or individual countries. Clearly,

the level of rejections will re¯ect the overall volume of

trade. Thus, for example, the total number of violations

in greater for Latin America and the Caribbean than for

Africa. Further, these data take no account of product

that is eventually imported after further testing and/or

following treatment to bring it into compliance with US

SPS requirements.

4. Countries studied were: India, Zimbabwe, Egypt,

Vietnam, Guatemala, Ghana, Kenya, Ethiopia,

Gambia, Cameroon.

5. A copy of the questionnaire is available on request.

6. Cross-noti®cations occur when a Member questions

the SPS measures applied by another Member in the SPS

Committee, bilateral discussions between the two parties

having reached an impasse.

REFERENCES

Bathrick, D. D. (1998). Fostering global well-being: Anew paradigm to revitalise agricultural and ruraldevelopment. Washington, DC: International FoodPolicy Research Institute.

Biggs, T., Miller, M., Otto, C., & Tyler, G. (1996). Africacan compete: Export opportunities and challenges forgarments and home products in the european market.Washington, DC: World Bank.

Caswell, J., & Henson, S.J. (1997). Interaction ofPrivate and Public Food Quality Control Systems in

Global Markets. In R. J. Loader, S. J. Henson, &W. B. Traill (Eds.). Globalization of the foodindustry: policy implications. Reading: Departmentof Agricultural and Food Economics, The Univer-sity of Reading.

Cato, J. C. (1998). Economic issues associated withseafood safety and implementation of seafoodHACCP programmes. Rome: FAO.

Colby, L. J. (1997). Trade opportunities for processedmeat. Geneva: UNCTAD.

WORLD DEVELOPMENT100

Diaz-Bonilla, E., & Reca, L. (1999). Trade and agroin-dustrialization in developing countries. Paper pre-sented at the workshop on Agroindustrialization,Globalization and Economic Development. Nash-ville, August.

Digges, P., Gordon, A., & Marter, A. (1997). Interna-tional markets for African agricultural exports: Agri-cultural policy reform and agricultural exports.Greenwich: NRI.

Edwards, S. (1992). Trade orientation, distortions andgrowth in developing countries. Journal of Develop-ment Studies, 39(1), 31±57.

Edwards, S. (1998). Openness, productivity and growth:what do we really know. Economic Journal, 108, 444±454.

ESCAP (1996). Promoting exports of ®sh and ®sheryproducts in selected island developing countries of theESCAP region. Economic and social commission forAsia and the Paci®c. New York: United Nations.

FAO (1994). The Uruguay Round ®nal act and itsimplications for the world livestock and meat economy.Rome: FAO.

FAO (1998). Possible implications of sanitary andphytosanitary measures for exporters of oilseed-basedproducts to the European Union. Rome: FAO.

FAO (1999). Importance of food quality and safety fordeveloping countries. Committee on World FoodSecurity 25th Session. Rome: FAO.

Finger, J.M., & Schuler, P. (1999). Implementation ofUruguay Round commitments: The development chal-lenge. Paper presented at the conference DevelopingCountries in a Millennium Round. Geneva, Septem-ber.

Giles, J. A. (1997). Trade opportunities in the interna-tional processed horticultural markets. Geneva: UN-CTAD.

Gilmour, B., & Oxley, J. (1998). Trade facilitationmeasures in processed food trade. Economic andPolicy Analysis Directorate, Ottawa: Agriculture andAgri-Food Canada.

Gonzalo Rios, K. (1999). Technical assistance needs ofdeveloping countries and mechanisms to provide tech-nical assistance. Paper presented at the conferenceInternational Food Trade Beyond 2000: Science-Based Decisions, Harmonization, Equivalence andMutual Recognition, Melbourne, September.

Hathaway, D. E., & Ingco, M. D. (1996). Agriculturalliberalization and the Uruguay Round. In W.Martin, & L. A. Winters (Eds.), The Uruguay Roundand the developing countries. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Henson, S. J., Loader, R. J., Swinbank, A., Bredahl, M.,& Lux, N. (2000). Impact of sanitary and phytosan-itary measures on developing countries. Reading:Department of Agricultural and Food Economics,The University of Reading.

Henson, S. J., & Loader, S. J. (1999). Impact of sanitaryand phytosanitary standards on developing countriesand the role of the SPS Agreement. Agribusiness,15(3), 355±369.

Hillman, J. (1997). Non-tari� agricultural trade barriersrevisited. In D. Orden, & D. Roberts (Eds.), Under-standing technical barriers to agricultural trade.

Minneapolis: International Agricultural Trade Re-search Consortium, University of Minnesota.

Hoekman, B. (1998). Beyond national treatment: Inte-grating domestic policies. Washington, DC: WorldBank.

Horton, L. R. (1998). Food from developing countries:steps to improve compliance. Food and Drug LawJournal, 53(1), 139±171.

Hirschorn, N., & Unnevehr, L. (1999). Food safety:Issues and opportunities for the World Bank. Wash-ington, DC: World Bank.

Kortbech-Olesen, R. (1997). World trade in processedtropical fruit. Geneva: UNCTAD.

Ja�ee, S. (1999). Southern African agribusiness: Gainingthrough regional collaboration. Washington, DC:World Bank.

Johnson, R.W.M. (1997). Technical measures for meatand other products in Paci®c Basin countries. In D.Orden, & D. Roberts (Eds.), Understanding technicalbarriers to agricultural trade. Minneapolis: Interna-tional Agricultural Trade Research Consortium,University of Minnesota.

Josupeit, H. (1997). Trade opportunities for processed®sh. Geneva: UNCTAD.

Laird, S., & Yeats, A. (1990). Trends in non-tari�barriers of developed countries. WeltwirtschaftlichesArchiv, 126, 299±325.

Marsden, K. (1990). African entrepreneurs: Pioneers ofdevelopment. Washington, DC: International Fi-nance Corporation.

Messerlin, P. A., & Zarrouk, J. (1999). Trade facilita-tion: technical regulations and customs procedures.Paper presented at the conference Developing Coun-tries in a Millennium Round. Geneva, September.

Michalopoulos, C. (1999). The developing countries inthe WTO. World development, 27, 117±143.

Milner, C. (Ed.), (1990). Export promotion strategies:Theory and evidence from developing countries.London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Murphy, K. M., & Shleifer, A. (1997). Quality andtrade. Journal of development economics, 53, 1±15.

Mutasa, M. P., & Nyamandi, T. (1998). Report of thesurvey on the identi®cation of food regulations andstandards within the africa region codex membercountries that impede food trade. Paper presented atWorkshop on Codex and Harmonization of FoodRegulations, Harare, August.

National Research Council (1995). Standards, confor-mity assessment and trade. Washington, DC: Na-tional Research Council.

Ndayisenga, F., & Kinsey, J. (1994). The structure ofnon-tari� trade measures on agricultural products inhigh income countries. Agribusiness, 10(4), 275±292.

Petrey, L. A., & Johnson, R. W. M. (1993). Agriculturein the Uruguay Round: sanitary and phytosanitarymeasures. Review of Marketing and AgriculturalEconomics, 61, 433±442.

Prasidh, C. (1999). Food trade and implementation of theSPS and TBT agreements: challenges for developingcountries in meeting the obligations of the SPS andTBT agreements and the codex alimentarius. Paperpresented at the conference International FoodTrade Beyond 2000: Science-based Decisions,


Harmonization, Equivalence and Mutual Recogni-tion, Melbourne, September.

Roberts, D. (1997). Implementation of the WTO agree-ment on the application of sanitary and phytosanitarymeasures: the ®rst two years. Paper presented at themeeting of the International Agricultural TradeResearch Consortium, December.

Roberts, D., & DeKremer, K. (1997). Technical barriersto US agricultural exports. Washington, DC: Eco-nomic Research Service, USDA.

Roberts, D., Josling, T. E., & Orden, D. (1999a). Aframework for analyzing technical barriers in agricul-tural markets. Washington, DC: Economic ResearchService, USDA.

Roberts, D., Orden, D., & Josling, T. (1999b). WTOdisciplines on technical barriers to agricultural trade:progress, prospects and implications for developingcountries. Paper presented at the conference Agricul-ture and the New Trade Agenda in WTO 2000Negotiations. Geneva, October.

Rodrick, D. (1999). The new global economy anddeveloping countries: Making openness work. Wash-ington, DC: Overseas Development Council.

Singh, K. (1994). GATT (WTO): implications for Indianagriculture with special reference to Punjab. IndianJournal of Quantitative Economics, 9(2), 85±107.

Sinsakul, K. (1999). Technical assistance needs of devel-oping countries and mechanisms to provide technicalassistance. Paper presented at the conference Inter-national Food Trade Beyond 2000: Science-basedDecisions, Harmonization, Equivalence and MutualRecognition, Melbourne, September.

Sullivan, G. H., Sanchez, G. E., Weller, S. C., &Edwards, C. R. (1999). Sustainable development inCentral America's non-traditional export crop sectorthrough integrated pest management practices.Sustainable Development International, 12, 123±126.

Sykes, A. O. (1995). Product standards for internationallyintegrated goods markets. Washington, DC: Brook-ings Institution.

Thilmany, D. D., & Barrett, C. B. (1997). Regulatorybarriers in an integrating world food market. Reviewof Agricultural Economics, 19(1), 91±107.

Thornsbury, S., Roberts, D., DeRemer, K., & Orden, D.(1997). A ®rst step in understanding technical barriersto agricultural trade. Paper presented at the confer-ence of the International Association of AgriculturalEconomists, Sacramento, August.

UNCTAD. (1997). Opportunities for vertical diversi®ca-tion in the food processing sector in developingcountries. Geneva: UNCTAD.

UNCTAD/Commonwealth Secretariat (1996). The glo-bal spice trade and the Uruguay Round Agreements.

Geneva and London: UNCTAD, and Common-wealth Secretariat.

UNCTAD. (1998). Elements of the positive Agenda onthe SPS agreement. Genea: United Nations Confer-ence on Trade and Development.

Unnevehr, L.J. (1999). Food safety issues and fresh foodproduct exports from LDCs. Paper presented at theconference: Agro-Industrialization, Globalizationand Development, Nashville, August.

Victor, D. (1999). Risk management and the worldtrading system: Regulating international trade distor-tions caused by national sanitary and phytosanitarypolicies. Paper presented at the conference: Incorpo-rating Science, Economics, Sociology and Politics inSanitary and Phytosanitary Standards in Interna-tional Trade, Irvine, California, January.

Vogel, D. (1995). Trading up: Consumer and environ-mental regulation in a global economy. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

World Bank (1998). World development report 1998/99.Washington, DC: World Bank.

World Bank (1999a). World development indicators 1998/99. Washington, DC: World Bank.

World Bank (1999b). African development indicators.Washington, DC: World Bank.

WTO (1994). Description of the agreement on theapplication of SPS measures. Geneva: World TradeOrganization.

WTO (1995). Agreement on sanitary and phytosanitarymeasures. Geneva: World Trade Organization.

WTO (1996). Understanding the world trade organizationagreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures.Geneva: World Trade Organization.

WTO (1998a). Special and di�erential treatment andtechnical assistance. Submission by India. Geneva:World Trade Organization.

WTO (1998b). Transparency. Submission by India.Geneva: World Trade Organization.

WTO (1998c). International harmonization of standards.Submission by India. World Trade Organization,Geneva.

WTO (1998d). The SPS agreement and developingcountries. Geneva: World Trade Organization.

WTO (1999a). SPS agreement and developing countries.Submission by Egypt. Geneva: World Trade Orga-nization.

WTO (1999b). Review of the operation and implementa-tion of the agreement on the application of sanitaryand phytosanitary measures. Geneva: World TradeOrganization.

Zarrilli, S. (1999). WTO sanitary and phytosanitaryagreement: Issues for developing countries. Geneva:The South Center.

WORLD DEVELOPMENT102

Barriers to Agricultural Exports from Developing Countries ...directory.umm.ac.id/Data...

Documents

Transcript of Barriers to Agricultural Exports from Developing Countries ...directory.umm.ac.id/Data...